85 comments:

Having Calvin Coolidge back in the White House wouldn't be bad, either, he took limited government seriously.

Experiencing this current 70s flashback and Carter's second term under the Obama Administration might be worth it if it starts a trend towards an appreciation of the appeal of limited government and renewed respect for federalism.

Probably a right wing pollster, in Texas. Rather have Obama (who I don't even like very much) to Bush. I cringe everytime I think that you all actually elected him, twice no less. I do not like to even associate myself with voting in those 2 elections, eventhough I did.

I don't want either, but if forced to pick who is less horrible, I'd pick Bush. In the end though, this is more like making the decision of whether you'd rather be shot or hung.

(I think Bush, Obama and even Palin are very similar in one respect: supporters of all three see into them what they want to see into them despite all evidence to the contrary. I was very irritated at the Democratic party in 2000 and 2004 for not putting up a more moderate candidate. Likewise, the Republican party of 2008 pissed me off for putting up a candidate whom I voted for simply because he wasn't Obama [I knew McCain would win my state and Obama the election, but at the very least I reduced the national popular vote for Obama by 1.])

That would be a refreshing change of pace wouldn't it? For the better part of two decades we seem to be presented a menu that contains a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with cheese. Or in the current case, arugala.

I think the point of the comparison is this: Bush endured 8 years of wall-to-wall, 24/7 liberal bashing from multiple networks. Meanwhile, Obama was coronated and has enjoyed wall-to-wall adoration from the same multiple networks. If Obama's numbers, 11 months in, already approach Bush's after EIGHT years, then, baby, you've got serious problems.

I've never seen that clip before. I thought GW did perfect with it. And it points something folks hated about GW, the "That's my story and I'm sticking to it!" approach to issues.

But no, if he were running again I wouldn't vote for him. But I sure wish our present President could answer such a question so succinctly and not have the audience feel like they were lectured to. (In some situations, nuance is not helpful.)

Think about what you typed garage. I expect that you were trying to imply that the stats weren't meaningful but out of work is out of work, Republican or not.

I've been seeing links to other articles about preferring Bush for some reason or another. One was to celebrities comparing visits to the White House... that Obama's staff (after the party "crashers") kept them out in the cold for an hour, that the Obamas at that Kennedy thing honoring artists didn't make eye contact when they shook hands, that important members of Obama's staff didn't "mix", and that there was less food. The quotes were basically that although they never *liked* Bush at all, when they visited the White House for the exact same traditional and expected events that the Bushes were more hospitable.

I also read that Obama is being harshly criticized in Norway for not rushing to the beck and call of European Royalty like *other* Nobel winners... but I don't put any weight on those reports. From all I can tell bashing Americans is a national pass time over there and (as one of Norwegian descent) take the complaints with a HUGE grain of salt. No Norwegian I know is nearly as happy without something to complain about and they love complaining about Americans! (They aren't alone, either.)

We're all McDonalds and muck raking morning talk shows featuring fat hillbillies airing their family dramas. Also, we don't *read*. It matters not at all that they eat this stuff up, also don't *read*, and sit in front of the tube rotting their brains with our televisions shows.

It does sort of illustrate something that a whole lot of those thinking that our "reputation" could be repaired over there are sadly ignorant about, however.

For a whole lot of the world Obama can do no right simply because he is the American president. He may have had a little honeymoon, but it's over.

I'm one of the people that has not once had a "gee, if only Dubya was still President" moment.

1. I have had numerous "gee, if only Mitt Romney was President" moments,2. Several "gaw, it's odious and I'm disgusted with myself by the thought..but I wish Hillary had been the nominee".3. Even a few times I wished that the Goddess Palin had a bigger brain, was magically conferred with more experience, and had actually run for President.4. Never once regretted not voting for the abysmal erratic dimbulb, McCain.5. But wished that Jeb Bush did not have the last name "Bush", several times...6. Wished Fred Thompson had been younger and hungrier, though..as well.

As is, the Democrats own it..have no turncoat professional POW hero-victim to give them the fig leaf of bipartisanship.And Lisa Jackson of the EPA and Eric Holders show trials stand poised to drive home the nails in Obama and the "supermajority" Demmocrat Congress's coffin.

Unless Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with more religious and rural southern-fried values litmus tests.They are perfectly capable of that, you know...become the unelectable Party of Total Goldwaterite purity...

============mccullough said... Obama definitely has W.'s mixture of arrogance and incompetence.We had good presidents from 1933 to 1961 and 1981 to 2001. Let's hope this phase ends on Jan. 20, 2013.

I'd add the timespans of JFK and Nixon on to that list. Both guys did a lot more good than harm, and unlike LBJ, Ford, Carter, Dubya, and likely Obama........left America better off from their time in office.

One was to celebrities comparing visits to the White House... that Obama's staff (after the party "crashers") kept them out in the cold for an hour, that the Obamas at that Kennedy thing honoring artists didn't make eye contact when they shook hands, that important members of Obama's staff didn't "mix", and that there was less food.

There was something yesterday about the Obama’s deciding not to take pictures with folks at the annual Christmas party, sending invitations late and less formally, etc..etc...

I attended one of the Christmas parties under Bush and he graciously took pictures with everyone, the food and drinks were awesome and plentiful and basically everything was lovely. I can't imagine why the Obama's wouldn't want to continue doing that. I'm sure it's a pain to take pictures with everybody, but sometimes you should do things you don't want to do, just to make someone else happy. It's good for the soul. Someone once said that good manners is just a series of small, inconsequential sacrifices.

How on earth did Meade happen to meet up with who may be some of the only Texans who don't like the former president? Oh, wait, he was in Colorado. I'm sorry to say we have our elitist garbage bags here in Texas, too.

Whatever your political differences with George W., he was the very model of graciousness in office. The current occupant of the White House well deserves his gathering reputation as a petualant child.

Back on October 1, 2008 I sent an open letter to several r/w bloggers including Instapundit, Ace, LGF, etc. showing them how they could block BHO from becoming president. The only help I got was when an Ace co-blogger briefly promoted the plan, and that was not due to the letter but due to a comment I left. I posted the plan everywhere I could find, and it's one I've been pushing since I tried to ask BHO a question way back in February 2007. If I or someone else who's familiar with pressing people on things had gotten to ask him a question - or had done the same with McCain before the nomination - things would be quite different.

And, things would be different now if others were pushing that plan. The stimulus might have been blocked or reduced, illegal imm. might be reduced and unemployment eased, and on and on.

Instead of promoting plans that can solve problems, your leaders just put on a show. When they encourage people to do things, they encourage them to go wave loopy signs like SDS' junior league, or they encourage people to swarm Congress or public meetings and throw tantrums. It's all completely anti-intellectual and ineffective.

"Unless Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with more religious and rural southern-fried values litmus tests.They are perfectly capable of that, you know...become the unelectable Party of Total Goldwaterite purity..."

I'm not at all convinced that this rot is coming mostly from some rural southern-fried source.

I heard too much last time around all the reasons that Romney couldn't be elected and why Giuliani couldn't possibly be elected and why Fred would never make it.

Once in a while, only once in a very rare while did the person saying that Romney couldn't win because of his underwear, or Giuliani because of abortion or gun control, or Fred because he was too laid back, actually *personally* object to those things.

Yes, some people would never vote for a Mormon. Yes, some people would not be assured even if Giuliani promised that he would not touch gun control and abortion was a state matter. Yes, some people didn't want a president who was not hyper-active. (Honestly, I don't know who that was, but...) But I almost never heard someone say *I* will not vote for a Mormon. Or *I* will not vote for Giuliani for whatever reason. Or *I* don't think Fred has enough energy.

So who was it making sure we all knew who wasn't electable because of Southern-fried values?

"Obama says no to a European king and gets slammed by conservatives. Who says they're inconsistent?"

Not me.

But most of the fussing I've heard about it either takes the Norwegian criticisms at face value (which I don't) that they don't FEEL like Obama is doing the nice-nice properly, or is appreciation of this example of Obama failing to automagically make everyone love us... or at least him.

Obama is trouble for the Republicans in a very strange sort of way. Usually when a party goes out of power it has time to lick its wounds and clear the way for new leadership to arise. But the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triangle has screwed things up so badly so fast that this hasn't had time to happen. Right now I don't see who those new Republican leaders are -- well Palin has been thrust by the Media and Obama into a sort of leadership role, and every now and again Obama and his intellectual slaves (e.g., Chris Matthews, Joy Behar, AlphaLiberal, garage, downtownlad, intellectual lightweights like that) try to push Rush Limbaugh into that role. The real leaders are out there, but will 11 months be time enough?

It is amazing how relaxed Bush is taking this criticism. Poor Obama felt the need to address every possible complaint in that Afghanistan speech. I'm not even saying it was an awful speech (that'll put me in the minority here) but he is awfully touchy.

"So 56 percent don't want Bush back as president? I'm not sure how that adds up to 'they long for that cooling spray of water to the face.'"

Of course not, Beth. That's because you're being willfully obtuse.

Let me break it down for you anyway:

A portion of Obama's support came from people who were tired of Bush and didn't want anybody remotely like Bush in the White House. Bush's numbers were in the 20's. The talking heads were saying that Bush had tarnished the Republican brand and had made it fatally toxic.

As it turns out though, given the choice between one of the most unpopular presidents of all time and President Obama, Obama's margin of victory is 6%. As it turns out, Bush didn't tarnish his own friggin' brand as much as everybody claimed, let alone the Republican party's brand.

Senator McCain, portrayed by everybody as Bush-lite, lost by a little over 7%. Now, in this hypothetical match-up between Obama and the arch-villain Chimpy McHalliburtorn himself, the dumbass-in-chief, the village idiot from Texas, the Hoover of our age...

...Obama pulls out a 6% margin of victory.

Note that President Bush's approval rating was in the twenties a year ago, and now 44% of the population would pick him over Obama. Meanwhile, Obama is in the midst of a historically unprecedented slide. Since the dawn of public opinion polling, no president has fallen as far as fast as Obama. (No shit, if this trend keeps up, Obama's approval is going to be in the 30's this time next year.)

He's doing so poorly, in fact, that the least popular president in American history is catching up with him.

Bush ain't the point here. He won't be running for president in 2012, and he won't be running for a House or Senate seat next year. But it does look like Obama's "Not Bush" Card has seen better days.

Just my experiences; I live in East TN; we used to be a swing state but have gotten very conservative over the past 10 years or so (BTW, if Gore had won here, his home state, FL wouldn't have mattered a bit).

I've been a big Giuliani fan for a long time, and was very excited about supporting him last year. I still think he would have made a great president. But, a number of my conservative friends thought that I was crazy. Not just they picked someone else; they were actively opposed to Giuliani. Even my fellow law students couldn't grasp that judges were the only thing that mattered for abortion, and that he would be good on that issue.

Maybe if it had been him against BO, they would have gotten over it. But I'll bet that many wouldn't have. Unfortunately.

Fred Thompson's entire base of support was a small cadre of bloggers with unrealistic expectations. Ron frickin' Paul had a better chance of getting elected. So, if you didn't hear people saying that they wouldn't vote for Fred Thompson because he didn't have enough energy, it's because so few knew or even cared that he was running.

As far as not hearing Republicans, specifically the Republican base, saying that they wouldn't support Giuliani or Romney, my suspicion is that you didn't get out enough. (The born-agains and deep-fried social conservatives had big problems with both candidates. A lot of them had problems with McCain, too, and once McCain got the nod, they just wouldn't shut the hell up about how they refused to support him. They're part of the reason Obama got elected.)

I wonder if Obama hasn't painted himself into a corner with European royalty. If he doesn't bow before them, isn't he disrespecting their throne and people vis a vis the Japanese and Saudi Arabians. If he does bow, isn't that a servile gesture for an American, particularly a black American, to make. Perhaps he skipped the meeting with the king to avoid this impasse.

Absolutely shocking! A smaller percentage of people who voted against the Democratic candidate for President now would rather have the previous Republican President instead of the Democrat???? Such terrible news for Obama!!!

I don't think I said I never heard people say they'd personally not vote for someone for socially conservative reasons only that more often than not what I heard was that someone *else* would never vote for whomever for whatever reason.

In fact I think I went out of my way to say that I was sure it was true for some people.

And what it got us was John McCain.

Too many "I like Giuliani, but do you really think the bible belt will vote for someone who once appeared in drag, is multiply divorced, is pro-choice, and thinks it's okay for large municipalities to enact gun control?" And then, really early on, Giuliani would appear down south someplace and talk to skeptical audiences and some southern belle would be interviewed afterward saying "I think he'll do better in the South than people think."

Oh SURE I know people who absolutely wouldn't vote for Giuliani... they voted for Huckabee. How many people worried about the voting habits of those socially conservative voters, voted for bland McCain instead of their first choices? If you're trying to please Huckabee voters, the least you can do is vote for Huckabee!

C4 was talking about purity issues as if they stem from values voters but by and large those voters are portrayed as the reason Republicans lost and the ones who need purging. True there's some of that both directions, but there is a whole lot from the intellectual (trying to decide if that should be in scare quotes) centrist part of the Republican Party.

And what are they thinking? That a majority of Republicans would vote for Romney if only they could shed the annoying Huckabee voters?

What was keeping them from voting for Romney last time?

(I hear people now saying they won't vote for Sarah Palin because they don't think she's qualified, but I *also* hear a whole lot of earnest effort by people who claim they would love her for President BUT... and then explain how she can't be elected because the media was too mean or her reputation is too damaged. I think we call these people concern trolls, and they aren't new.)

"Absolutely shocking! A smaller percentage of people who voted against the Democratic candidate for President now would rather have the previous Republican President instead of the Democrat???? Such terrible news for Obama!!!"

When President Bush left office at the beginning of the year, he was one of the least popular presidents in American history. He had a pitiful 22% approval rating and an enormous 73% disapproval rating.

When President Obama took office, there was much rejoicing. Bush's supporters didn't approve, giving Obama a disapproval rating in the low 20's, but the majority of the country rejoiced, and Obama's approval scraped 70%. This meant that even some of the people who voted against Obama approved of him.

We can safely assume that half of the 44% who would prefer Bush to Obama today represents that 22% who approved of Bush in the final days of his campaign. The other 22%, however, includes people who disapproved of him and were relieved that he was out of office. It also includes a small but not insignificant number of people who approved of Obama a year ago. (Do the math!)

It's not a problem for Obama that Bush's core supporters still reject him. Every president has to deal with the fact that about 20% of the electorate will oppose him on general principle. What is a problem for Obama is that The Worst President EVAR! has actually gained on him in the space of a single year.

I am heartened by this, and expect that this trend will recover. GWB intentionally and knowingly sacrificed his popularity and legacy to do what he thought was the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I were to find one word that would distinguish GW Bush from Obama, I think that it would be humility. I don't think that Bush ever forgot that he was working for us, and that it was a great honor.

In the case of Obama, we are already counting the number of I's in every speech of his. He is the furthest thing from humble that there is. It is all about him, and never about us.

Gracious would be another word that can be used with the Bushes. His parents, and especially his mother, went out of their way to make the staff at the White House, the Secret Service, etc. feel like family.

And then they got the Clintons, where Hillary apparently set rules that none of the staff could make eye contact with her, and that they should all stand against the wall looking down when she came by. It almost sounded like Wilson's resegregation of the White House.

And, the Obamas seem to be following the Clintons when it comes to arrogance (but not, yet, at least, the self-indulgence).

Why is it that Presidents from the party of the people act so arrogant, while those of the gentry, who were raised in (at least some) wealth, show so much more class, compassion, and humility?

I do believe that in another decade or so, George W. Bush will be well rehabilitated as a President.

Whoever takes over from Obama in 2012, is going to have a horrible mess on their hands...virtually a no-win situation. Expectations will still be high while the big costs from healthcare, bailouts and the stimuli will be just beginning to hit.

IF Obama can be neutered by a hostile Congress, it might be in everyone's interest to keep him in office until 2016. Reality will have a chance to sink in among the electorate and people will have an opportunity to assess the cost of this little fling and what caused it. The Republicans will have time to find leadership talent or, lacking that, the Tea Party could develop into an effective force.

Obama might also grow into the job. Opposition can do that to people. Obama's problem is that too much has gone his way without requiring much from him.

But there's no guarantee the little twerp would go along with it and stay on the job while his chickens come home to roost.

Is it not inevitable, especially in the highly polarized state of politics in this country, that any massive highs will eventually come close to evening out? The Republicans who approved early on were likely just optimistic and happy that Bush was out after a tumultuous 8 years. When the Democratic President started acting like a Democratic President, obviously they're going to start peeling off and wax nostalgic for a Republican.

Obama has the job of leading a country in two wars with a bad economy, while Bush can sit in Dallas, and give the occasional interview. This is just like the comparison of Obama approval with Palin popularity the other day - clearly, someone with no responsibilities beyond signing books or doing nothing is less likely to remain low, and a President is less likely to remain high, absent extraordinary circumstances like 9/11.

I don't know if any Republican could have won the Presidency last year. I think if any of them could have, it might have been Romney. The advantage he had was that he is smarter and better educated than Obama, and is the one candidate who probably really did understand what was going on with our economy. Obviously, McCain didn't. And, Obama was able to play the sage by saying and doing exactly nothing, letting his supporters in the MSM make him out as something he was not - someone who knew what was going on. It is obvious that he didn't then, because he really still doesn't have a clue as to how the economy works.

But any Republican would have had to deal with Bush fatigue, and, in the end, I think that the Democrat was going to beat the Republican, almost regardless of who was running from both parties.

But, we are now seeing again why Democrats are so dangerous with power. And part of that is that instead of running to serve the people, so many of them seem to believe that the purpose of government is to enrich themselves and their friends, and power is rightfully theirs, due to their innate superiority as humans and Americans.

Obama, Hillary, and their ilk act like the spoiled petty tyrants they are. They are the stock that dictators and true tyrants come from. They are not likely to achieve those ends in this country, but in another environment I'm sure they would stop at nothing to accumulate and hold on to as much power as possible.

The city of Denver surveyed me. They notified me they'd survey me, then surveyed and followed up on the survey through the mail on the same day, and I'm thinking,

"You're ass holes."

And I knew they would not leave it alone until they got a response so I gave it to them. Yes it's a fine place to live, no I wouldn't recommend it to anybody, no you're not doing a good enough job, yes I'm against higher taxes to improve things. Now do more with less like everybody else, and surveying me isn't it, now piss off.

I would, however, point out that America isn't as polarized as everybody claims. We're broken up into three camps, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and these camps are roughly equal in size.

In reality, about 30-35% of the population is made up of Republicans. It was probably inevitable that this segment of the population would peel away from Obama eventually. But if 30% population is made up of Republicans, then that means that Bush is picking up an additional 14% support from Independents (and if 35% of the population is made up of Republicans, then Bush is picking up 9% support from Independents).

In either case, the fact that Worst President EVAR! is gaining ground and moving past his Republican base back into the ranks of the Independents, who rejected him fairly thoroughly toward the end of his second term.

This is fairly consistent with visible increases in the number of people who support Dick Cheney, the number of people who believe the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, the number of people who support enhanced interrogation techniques, and so on.

You're absolutely right. Bush is retired. He won't be running for a seat in the House or Senate in 2010. He won't be running for president in 2012. But what we're seeing now, after the first year of Obama's presidency, isn't merely Republican approval for Obama slipping, but Independent approval and support slipping as well.

Seriously. No joke.

When the guy who decisively lost Independent support a year ago starts picking it up again, it's time to start worrying. Especially if you support the guy who's campaign strategy was, basically, to say, "I am not Bush or anything like Bush!"

I think it is actually quite simple. Bush's ratings were so low mainly do to a combination of the wars and, later on, the economy. With time, the irrational aspects of the Bush hatred have faded. They realize that, even though they might not agree with the decision to go to Iraq and the way he handled it, he wasn't the evil war criminal sort that some thought he was.

With Obama, I think it is even simpler. At a time when the economy is struggling, they see bills with large price tags. The majority of these people don't understand the complexities of the economy (neither do I), so an obvious reaction to this is disapproval. If unemployment drops and the economy continues in its apparent recovery, I have a feeling many people will not care as much about the massive price of some of these bills.

For most people, the person in charge is unpopular when times are bad, popular when times are good, regardless of whether or not the leader is responsible for either situation.

Count writers and directors of tragic movies among that score. Or at least depend on a Newsweek writer for alluding to that possibility. From an article in Newsweek:

"... mankind is on a dreary march to endless pain, and after sitting through this season's Oscar contenders, I can relate... But in the last few years they've been getting uncomfortably weighty. There's even a movie called A Serious Man—I had to get up and leave in the middle, it's so depressing—and it's a comedy.

You can blame Hollywood's doom and gloom on the Oscars, but I'm not going to. Instead, I think it's George W. Bush's fault. Most liberal directors felt restless under his presidency, and they pushed the envelope with over-the-top, operatic tragedies..."

Maybe he was being tongue-in-cheek. Who knows? Still, though, for all the joking about laying blame for the silliest things at George W. Bush's feet ("... The Steelers lost to the Browns. I blame Bush..."), it's rather sad to see the possibility of someone actually pulling a possible for real "I blame Bush" move in a column that's otherwise about entertainment.

Yes, I do hope that it was a silly attempt at sarcastic facetiousness. Because if it were for real, there will be an epic Fisking in store.

I wonder if Obama hasn't painted himself into a corner with European royalty. If he doesn't bow before them, isn't he disrespecting their throne and people vis a vis the Japanese and Saudi Arabians. If he does bow, isn't that a servile gesture for an American, particularly a black American, to make.

There's actually a worse optical problem there, with Obama showing elaborate deference to non-White sovereigns. Consider the case of Korea. Which, er, had a monarchy. But doesn't any more. Because of the Japanese. I haven't actually seen much objection to this from Koreans, I think because Obama is seen as more of a pop star figure than a president, but I'm sure it rankles for some, that their head of state isn't going to get a 90 degree bow, since their monarchy was abolished upon annexation by the Empire of Japan.